Social Darwinism

Abstract

Social Darwinism is a political theory that emphasizes struggle and competition, and claims that human racial stock improves by allowing ruthless and unrestrained competition in the economic realm. Social Darwinism apples the concepts of biological evolution to social and moral development by stating that it is social evolution through the "survival of the fittest" in a struggle for an existence in which the strong prevail and the weak are defeated. Currently, we use the terms of Darwinism, natural selection, and evolution interchangeably and use them to describe a process which uses random variations, and mutations are preserved through a process of natural competition that favors beneficial changes.
A History and Understanding of Social Darwinism
The term Darwinism may cause confusion in some people because they confuse Darwinism, the scientific theory, with Social Darwinism, the ethical theory. In truth, except for the name and a few basic principles, the two ideas do not have much in common and has very little to do with Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who famously suggested the scientific theory which states that a branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process he called natural selection. Social Darwinism is a term that started near the end of the nineteenth century and describes a set of social policies and theories designed to reduce the power of government with theories that attempt to explain the biological cause of human behavior. For the majority of the population this term has a negative connotation mainly due to the beliefs that the people who hold to these ideas have no compassion for the needy and reject the idea of any social responsibility. The term social Darwinism is often applied to any group of individuals who interprets the human society in terms of biology and natural law, with natural law being a philosophy that is based on what is considered to be the permanent characteristics of human nature. Natural law as it pertains to humans is the idea that mankind is like plants and animals, and that they have to fight in a battle for their very existence in which came to be known as natural selection (Nelson, 2006).
Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism gives a rational explanation behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. Social Darwinists often state that the government should not interfere with the natural competition between humans by regulating the economy and by providing a multitude of social programs to combat poverty. Instead, the government should incorporate an economic system that is favorable to competition and supports self-interests concerning social and business interactions. A true social Darwinists will put forward a legitimate argument that justifies the imbalance of power between individuals, races, or other nations because they believe that some people are just more suited for survival then others (Roucloux, 2002).
Social Darwinism is somewhat hard to define with their being many different definitions used to explain its main ideas. One of the most-used definitions of social Darwinism states that it is a political theory that emphasizes struggle and competition, and claims that human racial stock improves by allowing ruthless and unrestrained competition in the economic realm (Hodgson, 2005). Social Darwinism apples the concepts of biological evolution to social and moral development by stating that it is social evolution through the "survival of the fittest" in a struggle for an existence in which the strong prevail and the weak are defeated (Versen, 2009). Currently, we use the terms of Darwinism, natural selection, and evolution interchangeably and use them to describe a process which uses random variations, and mutations are preserved through a process of natural competition that favors beneficial changes (Hodgson, 2005).
The individual most associated with the theories behind Social Darwinism is an Englishman by the name of Herbert Spencer. Spencer had already developed most of his ideas accreted to the social Darwinistic principles when he published his 1851 book entitled “Social Statics”. In this book, he stated that the poor should not receive help through government-backed programs, but should be allowed to perish for the advancement of society as a whole. As it pertains to government assisted programs to help the poor Spencer wrote:
“Blind to the fact that, under the natural order of things society is constantly excreting its unhealthy, imbecile, slow, vacillating, faithless members, these unthinking, though well-meaning, men advocate an interference which not only stops the purifying process, but even increases the vitiation--absolutely encourages the multiplication of the reckless and incompetent by offering them an unfailing provision and discourages the multiplication of the competent and provident by heightening the prospective difficulty of maintaining a family. And thus, in their eagerness to prevent the really salutary sufferings that surround us, these sigh-wise and groan-foolish people bequeath to posterity a continually increasing curse”.
Spencer believed that evolution, like gravity, was a universal law inevitably driving the process of universal development (Versen, 2009). It was his elites ' philosophical views on ethics, which became more popular once he adapted and applied Darwin’s ideas of natural selection. He believed that in a civilized society, any governmental interference would act as a barrier to individual evolution. Spencer was against steps the government took to alleviate an individual of their moral responsibilities to their fellow man and preventing them from developing their own ethical character; he believed that moral character was inheritable like other acquired characteristics. Spencer believed that a reduction in morality for one generation would continue to spread and have negative ramifications for the following generations. Spencer 's concepts of adaptation allowed him to declare that the rich and powerful were more advantageous to the social and economic climate of the time, and the ideas of natural selection allowed him to assert that it was natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive and for the weak to fail, it was this process that happened every day in nature (Lous, 2008). Spencer not only declared that his idea of survival of the fittest was natural, but also morally correct as well. Many extreme social Darwinists believe that it is actually unmoral to aid the weak and poor because it would be contributing to the survival and reproduction of individuals who were essentially unfit. It was Spencer 's complex set of ideas that symbolized the phrase " survival of the fittest " which Darwin adopted and used in later editions of his books on natural selection. Spenders own views that have come to be known as social Darwinism were written eight years prior to Darwin 's book “On the Origin of Species” and would probably be more accurate if these theories and ideas were referred to as social Spencerism rather than referring to Darwin himself. Furthermore, the associations of social Darwinist ideas with racism are based on a misunderstanding of Darwin 's work when it comes to different categories of human being, in Darwin 's first book he was speaking about pigeons, not people. Darwin himself later speculated that his evolutionary principles of variation, inheritance, and selection might apply to the evolution of human language, as well as to moral principles and social groups (Hodgson, 2005). Herbert Spencer was also passionate about the ideas of laissez-faire by arguing that all government programs that assist the poor should be stopped; he even called for the end of public education because he thought it would help the people he judged as unfit to reproduce. Laissez faire is a French word meaning to leave alone or to allow to do, and is an economic and political doctrine that says economies function most efficiently when it is unencumbered by government regulation. People in favor of laissez faire support self-interest and competition and deeply oppose taxation and the regulation of commerce (Weikart, 1998).
Following in the ideas of Spencer, a gentleman by the name of Richard Hofstadter wrote a very powerful book in 1941 called “Social Darwinism in American Thought” in which he stressed that the theory of social Darwinism came to light because of " those who wished to defend the political status quo, above all the laissez-faire conservatives" (Hofstadter, 1941). Hofstadter believed that social Darwinism had two key elements, the first being that the phrases "struggle for existence" and "survival of the fittest" when they were applied to mankind meant that the best individual in a competition would win, and that this competitive process would lead to improvement in human life. The second element was that society should be seen as an organism and as a result could change very slowly over time, the same amount of time it takes for new species to be produced in nature (Hofstadter, 1941).
Another gentleman by the name of R.J. Halliday continued to expand on the ideas of Hofstadter and in 1971 he wrote a paper called “Victorian Studies” in which he attempted to fully define social Darwinism. In this paper Halliday described social Darwinism as a political theory and a philosophy of man who is primarily concerned with the degeneration of the genetic purity of a population and hence with the practical consequences of the breeding of the unfit (Halliday, 1971). According to this definition, social Darwinism is a theory which laissez-faire capitalism was considered the preferred condition for elevating the most deserving members of society and not a believe in individualism. According to Halliday, social Darwinism has four key components: a competitive laissez-faire ethic, conservative approach to social change, eugenic social policy and imperial vision (Nelson, 2006).
Since Halliday believed that social Darwinism was primarily a theory of populations in which laissez-faire capitalism was considered the perfect environment for promoting the most fit members of society (Weikart, 1998). The ideas of socialism were avoided by social Darwinists because it allowed unfit people to survive and reproduce as the result of welfare programs, which reduced the fitness of the population as a whole. It was believed that socialism could be controlled by using eugenic population controls. The word eugenic is a science term that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race or breed its most extreme forms. Social Darwinism has been used to justify eugenics programs that were aimed at eliminating what was considered to be undesirable genes from the population; these programs were sometimes coexisted with sterilization laws designed to control individuals seen as unfit. The American eugenics 's movement was fairly popular between 1910-1930. During this time, 24 states passed sterilization laws, and Congress passed a law restricting immigration from certain parts of the world they deemed to be unfit (Marks, 2010).
During the first few decades of the 20th century, the most influential geneticist in America was Charles B. Davenport. He was a teacher at Harvard University before establishing the Carnegie Institution 's genetics and evolution laboratories at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. In 1911 Davenport wrote “Heredity in Relation to Eugenics” were he stated:
"The general program of the eugenicist is clear -- it is to improve the race by inducing young people to make a more reasonable selection of marriage mates; to fall in love intelligently. It also includes the control by the state of the propagation of the mentally incompetent. It does not imply the destruction of the unfit either before or after birth."
The plan of the eugenics ' movement was that since the poor had these genes for feeblemindedness, which led them to misery, vice, and crime, the obvious solution to American social problems was to sterilize them, and restrict the immigration from poorer countries (Marks, 2010).

The concept of eugenics was created in the late 1800s by British scientist Sir Francis Galton. The mindset at that time was to use genetic selection used in breeding thoroughbreds and other animals to create a class of people who were free of inferior traits. Indiana became the first state in the nation to pass a eugenics law in 1907. In 1927 the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell moved the eugenics ' movement further along when the court ruled that the state of Virginia could legally sterilize teenager named Carrie Buck. Buck was sent to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and for being Feeble-minded because her foster parents deemed her a moral delinquent. After this ruling the eugenics ' movement in America gained a lot of momentum with in the United States, 33 states adopted some form of sterilization programs, which first targeted many individuals in mental institutions. However, as the years passed the definition of an unfit person expanded to include: alcoholics, epileptics, criminals, the deaf and blind, people on welfare, women labeled as being promiscuous, the feeble-minded, and children who were victims of rape. It 's estimated that 65,000 Americans were sterilized under these types of programs with a majority of them taking place without the victim 's knowledge or consent (Marks, 2010). These basic social Darwinist ideas of who was deemed to be unfit were also applied by the Nazi party in Germany to justify their eugenics programs and the eventual Holocaust.
Since its inception, the term and its ideas of social Darwinism have been used by advocates and nonbelievers to describe and justify the actions of mankind threw out history. Social Darwinism has been used to justify the actions of colonials who settled on the North American and started to colonize. Backers of the social Darwinist theory state that the actions of the colonists were morally acceptable because the native people of America were seen as weaker and unfit, so their actions were seen as it was acceptable and justifiable in take over the lands and its resources. These ideas and principals have been used to justify the actions of brutal dictators who use oppressive tactics against their subjects, provided a justification for abusive forms of capitalism were workers were paid pennies for long hours of backbreaking work, justified big business ' refusal to acknowledge labor unions, and was used to imply that the rich do not need to donate money to the poor and less fortunate (Pickens, 980). Social Darwinism was also applied to military action were it was argued that the strongest military would win against the weaker force because they were inherently unfit. These very ideas of social Darwinism have been linked to Hitler and the Nazi party and the near eradication of the Jewish people. If you look at a current website for the modern Nazi party, it states that one of its key elements of the Nazi ideology is social Darwinism.
Not all of the people who believe in the ideas of social Darwinism are as extreme as those mentioned above, social Darwinism did have some favorable effects within the United States. Since the belief in Social Darwinism discourages handouts to the poor and needed, it is more inclined to providing resources that people of all walks of life can use and enjoy. The well-known capitalists Andrew Carnegie combined philanthropy with Social Darwinism and used part of his vast fortune to set up hundreds of libraries and other public institutions to include universities. These places of education were were available for the benefit of anyone who would choose to help themselves to these resources. Andrew Carnegie was opposed to direct and indiscriminate handouts of charity to the poor because he felt that this favored the undeserving and the deserving person equally. (Lous, 2008).

Evolutionary theories have numerous important implications for ethics and philosophy because it upsets any system that revers humans above the rest of nature. The suggestion of evolution theories states that humans share a common origin with all other living things and are made of the same basic building blocks as inanimate matter. An ethical system derived from evolutionary theory does not encourage humans to emulate nature because the methods of survival of other creatures simply do not apply to humans. The fact that humans have the ability to reason implies that humans are separate. Mankind 's basic adaptation for survival is our ability to reason, and evolutionary ethics would make this a primary consideration (Roucloux, 2002). Something that must be clarified is the definition of a human in an evolution based ethics. Humans cannot be defined as souls or spirits that go beyond the material world because there is no evidence for this behavior. Instead, an evolution based ethics would need to take into account a natural definition of humanity and intelligence. The resulting definition of a human would then have to incorporate many controversial issues such as: abortion, genetic engineering, cloning, and artificial intelligence (Hodgson, 2005).
In conclusion, social Darwinism 's philosophical problems are rather intimidating because it makes the flawed assumption that what is natural is equivalent to what is morally correct. The problem with it is in the belief that just because something takes place in nature it must be a model of good moral behavior that all humans should follow. (Versen, 2009).This problem in Social Darwinist makeup comes from the fact that the theory falls into the " naturalistic fallacy", one, which consists of trying to derive an ought statement from an is statement. This same argument can be applied to the Social Darwinists ' attempt to extend natural processes into a human social structures. It is believed that it is absolutely impossible to obtain ought from is, and that it is impossible to do it so simply and directly as many social Darwinists have tried to do.

References:
Davenport, C. B. (1911). Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. New York.
Hodgson, G. M. (2005). Generalizing Darwinism to Social Evolution: Some Early Attempts. Journal Of Economic Issues (Association For Evolutionary Economics), 39(4), 899-914.
Hofstadter, R. (1944). Social Darwinism in American Thought. Beacon Press, Boston. 1992.
Halliday, R.J. (1971). Social Darwinism: A Definition. Victorian Studies. Vol. 14, No. 4 (Jun., 1971), pp. 389-405. Published by:Indiania Univrsity Press.
Lous Caruana, S. (2008). A Neglected Difficulty With Social Darwinism. Heythrop Journal, 49(4), 652-658. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00390.x
Marks, J. (2010). The Eugenics Page. Department of Anthropology. University of North Carolina. Accessed on May 9, 2012. From http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.htmlhsjsjsj
Nelson, R. (2006). Evolutionary social science and universal Darwinism. Journal Of Evolutionary Economics, 16(5), 491-510. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0025-5
Pickens, D. K. (1980). Social Darwinism: The Bibliogrographical Survival of The Fittest?. Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas Press), 61(2), 317-321.
Roucloux, J. (2002). Can Democracy Survive the Disgust of Man for Man? From Social Darwinism to Eugenics. Diogenes, 49(3), 47.
Spencer, H. (1851). Social Statics: or, The Conditions essential to Happiness specified, and the First of them Developed. London: John Chapman.
Versen, C. R. (2009). What 's Wrong with a Little Social Darwinism (In Our Historiography)?. History Teacher, 42(4), 403-423.
Weikart, R. (1998). Laissez-Faire Social Darwinism and Individualist Competition in Darwin and Huxley. European Legacy, 3(1), 17.

References: Davenport, C. B. (1911). Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. New York. Hodgson, G. M. (2005). Generalizing Darwinism to Social Evolution: Some Early Attempts. Journal Of Economic Issues (Association For Evolutionary Economics), 39(4), 899-914. Hofstadter, R. (1944). Social Darwinism in American Thought. Beacon Press, Boston. 1992. Halliday, R.J. (1971). Social Darwinism: A Definition. Victorian Studies. Vol. 14, No. 4 (Jun., 1971), pp. 389-405. Published by:Indiania Univrsity Press. Lous Caruana, S. (2008). A Neglected Difficulty With Social Darwinism. Heythrop Journal, 49(4), 652-658. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00390.x Marks, J Nelson, R. (2006). Evolutionary social science and universal Darwinism. Journal Of Evolutionary Economics, 16(5), 491-510. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0025-5 Pickens, D Roucloux, J. (2002). Can Democracy Survive the Disgust of Man for Man? From Social Darwinism to Eugenics. Diogenes, 49(3), 47. Spencer, H. (1851). Social Statics: or, The Conditions essential to Happiness specified, and the First of them Developed. London: John Chapman. Versen, C. R. (2009). What 's Wrong with a Little Social Darwinism (In Our Historiography)?. History Teacher, 42(4), 403-423. Weikart, R. (1998). Laissez-Faire Social Darwinism and Individualist Competition in Darwin and Huxley. European Legacy, 3(1), 17.